GFSZA exemption?

Thanks alot to Hrdware for bringing this up!

This is a link to a bill in Oklahoma, now I know it's not a Washington bill or law, but I wanted to get perspectives from some of the Washington members on this bill and if they think this should be pushed in WA

This legislation being introduced in Oklahoma would be a legislative declaration that all citizens of the united states allowed under Oklahoma law have been considered licensed and verified to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a school in order to exempt them from the GFSZA 1000 foot bubble.

Now I'm aware that no one has ever been snagged (at least not in the last 10 years) for merely carrying without committing some other crime near a school. but as an academic discussion on federalism, does anyone here think such a law would be valid or that such a law is even needed?

MT has had similar on the books for years... I am unaware of any challenges to it. MCA 45-8-360.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-360.htm

EMNofSeattle said:

Thanks alot to Hrdware for bringing this up!

This is a link to a bill in Oklahoma, now I know it's not a Washington bill or law, but I wanted to get perspectives from some of the Washington members on this bill and if they think this should be pushed in WA

This legislation being introduced in Oklahoma would be a legislative declaration that all citizens of the united states allowed under Oklahoma law have been considered licensed and verified to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a school in order to exempt them from the GFSZA 1000 foot bubble.

Now I'm aware that no one has ever been snagged (at least not in the last 10 years) for merely carrying without committing some other crime near a school. but as an academic discussion on federalism, does anyone here think such a law would be valid or that such a law is even needed?

Click to expand...

When are you not with in 1000 feet of a school while in a city??

I thought that, that law was ruled unconstitutional. Maybe it was and then rewritten and then never ruled on again.

Any law that bans the carry within 1000' of a school is an effectively a ban on carry within any city, town, and/or township.

Freedom1Man said:

When are you not with in 1000 feet of a school while in a city??

I thought that, that law was ruled unconstitutional. Maybe it was and then rewritten and then never ruled on again.

Any law that bans the carry within 1000' of a school is an effectively a ban on carry within any city, town, and/or township.

Click to expand...

Yes, US v Lopez, but the law was rewritten and has been found legal in several appeals court cases.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZS.html

United States v. Lopez (93-1260), 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce....

Freedom1Man said:

When are you not with in 1000 feet of a school while in a city??

I thought that, that law was ruled unconstitutional. Maybe it was and then rewritten and then never ruled on again.

Any law that bans the carry within 1000' of a school is an effectively a ban on carry within any city, town, and/or township.

Click to expand...

The original law passed in 1990 was ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't within Congress' power to enact. They made a change to say that it was only for guns that have been involved in interstate commerce (which is pretty much any.) Now, if you bought a gun in WA that was only ever in WA and created in WA could you get around it? It's pretty sketchy what Congress did to get the law passed, I think they claim way too many things involve interstate commerce...

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=dlj

The law is pretty stupid. 1000 feet within school grounds? I HAVE to drive within a 1000 feet of a school in order to get to my house. If I didn't have my CPL but had a firearm in my car I would have violated federal law and could have become a prohibited person... It should be repealed.

skeith5 said:

The original law passed in 1990 was ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't within Congress' power to enact. They made a change to say that it was only for guns that have been involved in interstate commerce (which is pretty much any.) Now, if you bought a gun in WA that was only ever in WA and created in WA could you get around it? It's pretty sketchy what Congress did to get the law passed, I think they claim way too many things involve interstate commerce...

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=dlj

The law is pretty stupid. 1000 feet within school grounds? I HAVE to drive within a 1000 feet of a school in order to get to my house. If I didn't have my CPL but had a firearm in my car I would have violated federal law and could have become a prohibited person... It should be repealed.

Click to expand...

The "interstate commerce clause" has been stretched far outside the intent of those who wrote it.

The power to regulate interstate commerce, is something I have spelled out the legal intent behind it before on here.

The only reason it's been upheld in any court is through pure sophistry and corrupted judges.

I am almost willing to bet that if one were to get into the nitty gritty of the legal details then I am sure that you would learn that the law is not what it appears to be. Like the little known fact that the way the laws are written, the FDA only has any legal authority at ports of entry.

Confirmed it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

All legal definitions are limited to what is listed.

If it really meant any of the 50 states then it would look like this.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title26/html/USCODE-2010-title26-subtitleD-chap38-dup1.htm
The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.


I am correct that it does not apply within the 50 states otherwise it would be unconstitutional.
You can't tell me that congress meant the same thing writing the laws this way.

Edit,
Here it is again.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/13102
(21) State.— The term “State” means the 50 States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

So it's obvious that this 1000' gun free zones around schools does not apply here, unless you buy the idea that Washington is still only a territory. I can give fuel to that argument also.

I have been charged with violating interstate commerce act and beat it. Not with a firearm but Swedish lumber. The judge ruled that the lumber I was transporting I had shown proof that it was no longer a interstate commodity once it had been received by one company and being transported to another company in the same state. Unfortunately the judge said the ruling set no precedent. I agree with the judges ruling, and it should be applied to firearms. Once a firearm is in the state, and in possession of the owner for use in that state it should not be considered a part of interstate commerce but intrastate commerce. Outside the federal jurisdiction.